17:51:14PeterL:<kakobrekla> this is not fiat << in fiat you need a written explanation for every deposit that hits your account. This is bitcoin, and I should be able to send money into whichever address I want, and it should not affect your debt to me

17:52:03kakobrekla:what you think you should has no impact on the design of a certain service and the implication arising from that fact

17:52:52kakobrekla:davout i _know_ you will not change that shit. i still want it to be published on relevant avenues.

17:54:01kakobrekla:its similar to when i said to mp 'i have no problem for you to publish you interpretation of events' re chinese konspiraci

17:56:58davout:you still haven't answered the question of: "should mp be allowed to deduct some money from mpex withdrawals to these addresses"

17:57:56PeterL:<kakobrekla> what you think you should has no impact << fine, let me rephrase: This is bitcoin, and I can send money into whichever address I want, and it does not affect your debt to me.

17:59:03PeterL:since davout denied the liability as bitbet's then yes, mp should be allowed to deduct payments from mpex withdrawals to those addresses.

18:00:04kakobrekla:theres dozens of questions you havent answered me either but anyway, his service doesnt produce any evidence of withdrawals or respective payments at any point so it seems his customers could or even should be expecting it!

18:00:39davout:this is not about evidence, this is about showing glaring holes in your "logic"

18:03:11kakobrekla:there rather big distinction between bitbet and mpex . if his withdrawal statement go "this is signed statement that x will get y btc" it would be a different story. instead of that you get served "thanks for your withdrawal"

18:04:11assbot:Logged on 19-04-2016 17:57:56; PeterL: <kakobrekla> what you think you should has no impact << fine, let me rephrase: This is bitcoin, and I can send money into whichever address I want, and it does not affect your debt to me.

18:04:47kakobrekla:there was never "this tx is the tx that affects your debt to me"

18:15:55davout:asciilifeform: did you personnally check every single payment made to a winning address, and check that was never any external payment made to it before the winnings were paid, and after the bet was resolved?

18:21:21davout:asciilifeform: the 'purpose' of a payment is not part of the {'payee', 'payer'} set

18:21:39asciilifeform:because if he WAS sending it with the intent of paying bbet users, it is now disingenuous to claim that it is 'unrelated', like gold dropped by happenstance on their heads by archangel gabriel or wtf

18:22:50davout:i do not claim it is unrelated, now if mp hypothetically admitted to fucking up and doing it in the name of bitbet, and the statement is not signed by kakobrekla, would mp not be in the right to recoup whatever money he can from these addresses?

18:30:55davout:if he was on the job fine, kako signs the statement, loss is on the company. kako doesn't want to sign? fine, mp was acting outside of bitbet, and gets to benefit from the claim arising from this payment

18:31:22davout:by, for example, withholding some money to select addresses from mpex withdrawals

18:36:10asciilifeform:it may as well be from archangel gabriel or satan

18:36:19asciilifeform:and that all bbet promised is that there will be A payment

18:36:27asciilifeform:a condition which was partially fulfilled by mp's tx.

18:36:37kakobrekla:even if mps service would go as far as giving out a signed statement of 'x amt to y addy' he could technically claim an existing tx as withdrawal to that address was his payment but it doesnt even go that far.

19:01:24whaack:k thx, wasn't sure why davout's !up didn't work. anyways, if I place a bet on bitbet where I request winnings to go to address A I should make sure no one else is going to create a txn that pays address A because if they send me an amount >= my winnings then bitbet will consider their debt settled? has this been done in the past?

19:04:26kakobrekla:anyway i dont think this debate will see an end or bare fruit of change to davouts payout list. i guess the more important question from now on is how do you fix this. by claiming certain inexact (low/high s) tx is serving your purpose by signing it with outputs or implicitly by using unique addresses or what?

19:05:55asciilifeform:kakobrekla: one way is by promising 'will pay to addr X and will sign string X with the addr from which will pay'

19:06:07kakobrekla:whaack i can not speak of how bitbet is going to be acting in the future

19:10:08asciilifeform:davout: the previous-payment thing does not exist unless claimed.

19:10:47asciilifeform:if mp were here, he would prolly cough up the 18th c. blackstone term for this.

19:11:33whaack:seems reasonable to me, I don't think there's anything wrong with the policy "we only guarantee that your given address, A, will increase by X btc at some point if you win." Of course you can always deny the second part of the question as to whether or not you've punished people for not understanding this concept.

19:13:03davout:whaack: there's nothing wrong with the policy itself, but as far as i can tell, it was never publicly advertised as the policy bitbet used

19:13:26kakobrekla:do you see written on kitchen knifes : "do not insert in you asshole" ?

19:14:21davout:yeah, reusing addresses sure is as bad as inserting knife in asshole

19:14:24whaack:another would be to keep the addr to be paid to, a secret between the two transacters << it doesn't have to be a secret. as a bettor I don't care whether or not bitbet gets lucky cuz a random shmuck sends me my btc winnings as long as the shmuck doesn't expect anything in return from me or consider a debt he owes me is cleared

19:25:00davout:if bitbet had paid, it would show in the accounting, however, as you refused to consider a particular action made in the name of bitbet, it does not exist from the point of view of bitbet's books

19:25:22davout:mp's books may or may not have a claim on some addresses written in them

19:30:56whaack:everytime someone reused address on bitbet, and had like half their bet paid out by some third party, bitbet only sent the other half owed, correct? << I still wish you would answer this.

19:33:07kakobrekla:whaack it afaik never underpaid for that reason, not because it couldnt but because it was a fair betting avenue. but fair goes both ways!

19:33:52davout:kakobrekla: well yes, fair does go both way, and if you want to claim stuff, you also have to account for the payment, and give that money back to mp, in addition to eating another 4 btc loss

19:34:31asciilifeform:davout: as i understand, kakobrekla's argument is that the bettors WERE PAID ~without a decidable payer~

19:35:20davout:asciilifeform: it's "without decidable payer" when kakobrekla wants to claim some money back, but the payer seems to be very clearly identified when it comes to deciding who's liable. how funny

19:35:34asciilifeform:and that bbet never promised that 'bbet will pay, demonstrably from bbet' but that 'you will be paid'

19:40:22davout:and if money's withheld that means bitbet chooses to own up, that kakobrekla finally changed his mind when it didn't mattered anymore, and that, on top of the clawback, mp is owed another ~4btc

19:43:09davout:kakobrekla: i'm out, let me know when you're done derping around here and if you feel like putting your gpg signature on something that declares mp was acting in bitbet capacity for this transaction

21:31:27PeterL:the simple solution is to have payout for each bet made from the incoming bet payments, that way you can point to the blockchain -these bets came in these txn, went out as winnings in those txn

21:56:12kakobrekla:unless you are mp where paying out includes fucking a goats ass shaped turnip and costs 0.5 btc per tx